Kachalsky v. Cacase - NY Carry - Cert Filed

S

smoking357

New member
Frank Ettin said:
And while I'm back here, I might as well explain that because the Supreme Court declined to hear Kachalsky it remains the law in the Second Circuit.
Click to expand...

Very good. Actually, it becomes settled law in the 2nd and persuasive authority in all other circuits. This case is now fair game for any other circuit to incorporate into its own jurisprudence.

If gun rights attorneys are dumb enough to bring cases in unfavorable circuits, look for judges to hold: "as sister circuits have contemplated similar cases and have concluded 'Kachalsky,' we find that the facts and circumstances of this case are similar enough that such rationale ought to control here. Accordingly, we adopt and apply the Kachalsky rationale in the instant matter."

Poof! In a couple sentences, Kachalsky becomes law in another circuit. Don't let that happen. Stop bringing gun cases.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
smoking357 said:
...Actually, it becomes settled law in the 2nd and persuasive authority in all other circuits....
Click to expand...
What's the difference between "settled law" and "law"?

And as for whether Kachalsky is persuasive authority in another circuit, it is up to the justices in that other circuit to decide if considering a case in which Kachalsky is cited.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. So you continually reinforce my view that there's no reason to take you seriously.
 
Last edited:
M

Musketeer

New member
Come on guys, read what he wrote.

"If gun rights attorneys are dumb enough to bring cases in unfavorable circuits,"

He obviously meant we need to pick our battles so as not to let this setback gain further strength. Bring cases in more favorable regions, don't challenge this exact issue in an unfavorable circuit or you can expect to have this latest case reinforced.
 
S

Spats McGee

Administrator
smoking357 said:
If gun rights attorneys are dumb enough to bring cases in unfavorable circuits, . . .
Click to expand...
Aren't unfavorable circuits the very places most badly in need of having their laws challenged? Do States like Arizona and Wyoming have statutes that need to be overturned?
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
No Spats.

AZ is in the CA9... We know how they will rule on anything, um, gun. Sorry for you folks in CA (CA9), we can't fight there.

WY? That's the CA10... We know they aren't friendly. See Peterson.

Hmm .... Come to think of it, there isn't a single 2A friendly circuit to be found (CA7 was an aberration, yes?)!

By the logic used by smoking357, we should indeed not file anywhere. Just let the probable unconstitutional laws role on. Like Maestro implies, we should just suck it up and take whatever the legislatures dish out.

smoking357? If you are indeed an attorney, I'm glad you aren't mine. I would fire you for incompetence.

ETA:
Musketeer said:
He obviously meant we need to pick our battles so as not to let this setback gain further strength. Bring cases in more favorable regions, don't challenge this exact issue in an unfavorable circuit or you can expect to have this latest case reinforced.
Click to expand...

That's not however, what smokin357 wrote. S/He explicitly wrote we should stop filing cases. Unless we had a favorable circuit. As we don't have such, what else might we do?
 
S

Spats McGee

Administrator
Correct, Al. Perhaps I should have said "unfavorable States" rather than "unfavorable Circuits." My point is that our litigation has to occur where the Cases and Controversies occur.
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Yes Spats.

In order to win, we have to fight where the battles take us. That is, in every case, unfriendly districts and unfriendly circuits.
 
K

Kochman

Moderator
Plus, it's hard to say we've lost anything by losing a case...
The case was confronting a loss we'd already sustained, and the cases try to overturn them. Try it makes it closer to codified to have an official ruling, but it already was codified somewhere or it wouldn't be in the courts to begin with...
We have to stand united, not just give up on CA, CT, CO, IL, MD or NY...
 
L

Luger_carbine

New member
Does this mean that SCOTUS will never hear Kachalski? Can Gura ever re-apply for cert?

Can SCOTUS reverse their decision in the future? Like lets say when Gura does file for cert in Woollard... can SCOTUS decide then that they want to hear Kachalski too?
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
Al Norris said:
...Hmm .... Come to think of it, there isn't a single 2A friendly circuit to be found (CA7 was an aberration, yes?)!...
Click to expand...
It's hard to say categorically that a Circuit is, or is not, Second Amendment friendly. Recall a few years ago in Nordyke the Ninth Circuit was the first to find the Second Amendment applicable to the States.
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Frank said:
It's hard to say categorically that a Circuit is, or is not, Second Amendment friendly. Recall a few years ago in Nordyke the Ninth Circuit was the first to find the Second Amendment applicable to the States.
Click to expand...

Yes Frank, I recall that. This was the same panel that ruled that heightened scrutiny need not apply unless the right was substantially burdened, was it not?
 
C

csmsss

New member
Does this mean that SCOTUS will never hear Kachalski? Can Gura ever re-apply for cert?
Click to expand...
He would have to do so on other bases than raised in his previous motion for cert. Picking the bones of Kachalski just to scratch out some previously unargued (and more than likely discarded) issue for cert doesn't seem to be a good use of Gura's time to me.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
Does this mean that SCOTUS will never hear Kachalski?
Click to expand...
Most likely. That's why we have Woollard and Moore as backups.

As for bad cases making bad caselaw, there is something of a point. Gura warned us about that. We've seen some dunderheaded lawsuits brought by individuals and local organizations that have done this.

However, Gura's won for us in the Supreme Court twice. I'm inclined to trust his judgment on this.
 
L

Luger_carbine

New member
IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan does seem emboldened

http://watchdog.org/79931/lisa-madi...-opens-door-for-il-may-issue-concealed-carry/

My take on it is that the Illinois anti gun politicians will now try to use "may issue" as a way to prevent people from carrying... If Woollard doesn't prevail, I think people in Illinois will see the current ban replaced with "shall not" issue. I guess it all depends on how they duke it out in the legislature, but the IL AG sure seems encouraged by cert denial of Kachalski.

It also seems to me that she may not appeal Moore now. If they can, in effect, re-create the current ban via a "may issue" system that actually issues to no one, why appeal Moore?
 
H

HarrySchell

New member
My take on it is that the Illinois anti gun politicians will now try to use "may issue" as a way to prevent people from carrying.
Click to expand...

They can imitate the progressive bastions of CA, use CA's template.

Bleh.
 
J

Jim March

New member
My take on it is that the Illinois anti gun politicians will now try to use "may issue" as a way to prevent people from carrying...
Click to expand...

They can't. Again: "may issue" is NOT going to happen in IL. Reason being, there are too many pro-RKBA IL legicritters believe it or not.

So, the ONLY things that can happen via the legislature is strong shall-issue or "Vermont carry" if they can't make a deal and the 7th Circuit's order shooting down all IL anti-carry laws happens as is scheduled to happen in July.

Madigan therefore is sitting on a very bad hand. She can appeal to the US Supremes and likely hand us gunnies a powerful win, or she lets the 7th Circuit ruling stand in which case we get either strong shall-issue or Vermont Carry in a matter of months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top